Juries- keep'em or trash'em?

[MyHeartIsYours]

That's subjective and it's your opinion! I could say that for me ,,Leto svet" and ,,Pokusaj" where better then ,,Madness of love" and ,,Sognu" and other people might think different! The only thing I have against the juries is that I don't think is fair that 215 people's opinion should be equal to milions of people's opinion just because the 215 people are music experts!

Of course it's my opinion, I dont speak for everybody! A lot of people do think this though, most people in this country think so and that's why Eurovision's popularity really has been boosted. When I look back at the old contest it does appear very corny and not very good (still fun though! ) in general. Like you say though it's my opinion, I just think that when you look at the likes of 'I Can', 'Playing With Fire', 'Is It True?', 'It's My Time' and 'Satellite', there's just no comparison.

Like I said before I think the number of Jury members should be raised to 10 and be a mix of musical experts. Like people have said, they should be named but only after the contest, in order to prevent any dodgy deals that have happened in the past.

 

[Sabiondo]

^ One could give it a try but I fear broadcasters will always abuse their power. For example German NDR always giving 80-95% of their points to 'blond countries' or Turkish TRT to muslim countries no matter how many persons they use for this. And there had to be strict criteria for the jury's setting but less for which genres they are (not) to vote. Additionally not only the juror's names need to be revealed, also to whom they gave their points and that during the voting procedure at best broken down to each specific member what would make bribing much more awkward.

That thing will change never

Im agaisn't that the juror's names need to be revealed, because it would create a big scandal against someone if they also would force them to reveal what they voted or you don't remember the scandal of 2002 Winter Olympics, when was reveal that about an Canadian couple that they after a flawless routine, they was received a score that only allowed them to get the silver medal, and shortly after the decision they appealed after discovered they had conflicts with French jury. The Canadian couple ended up getting the gold medal sharing first place with the couple from Russia who won the competition. Since them the jury in every skaing competition its secret, so the vote its secret

 

[CC92]

I remember Terry Wogan speaking bad about Lane moje during the voting and cheering for Stronger every minute instead so if he is representative for British public (what I do not know) they might not be the best measure talking about 'quality'. Actually it is senseless anyway. Could it not be that the interest increased rather because the BBC themselves stepped up their game?! Here I believe a large majority agrees. Only a very few people look up the other countries's entries before the show and even less (if any) make their decision (not) to watch the show dependent on this impression.

 

[CC92]

That thing will change never

Im agaisn't that the juror's names need to be revealed, because it would create a big scandal against someone if they also would force them to reveal what they voted or you don't remember the scandal of 2002 Winter Olympics, when was reveal that about an Canadian couple that they after a flawless routine, they was received a score that only allowed them to get the silver medal, and shortly after the decision they appealed after discovered they had conflicts with French jury. The Canadian couple ended up getting the gold medal sharing first place with the couple from Russia who won the competition. Since them the jury in every skaing competition its secret, so the vote its secret

I do not remeber this certain issue but you are pro bearing corruption for reasons of accommodativeness?

 

[Sabiondo]

I do not remeber this certain issue but you are pro bearing corruption for reasons of accommodativeness?

No, but also i must care about the segurity identity of voters

 

[CC92]

No, but also i must care about the segurity identity of voters

who that wants a special treatment his voice to be more weighted (in fact this means more than x100,000 times in some countries... ridiculous I say) and even getting money for it and in addition still tries to bribe has to live with the personal consequences then.

 

[A-lister]

Of course it's my opinion, I dont speak for everybody! A lot of people do think this though, most people in this country think so and that's why Eurovision's popularity really has been boosted. When I look back at the old contest it does appear very corny and not very good (still fun though! ) in general. Like you say though it's my opinion, I just think that when you look at the likes of 'I Can', 'Playing With Fire', 'Is It True?', 'It's My Time' and 'Satellite', there's just no comparison.

Like I said before I think the number of Jury members should be raised to 10 and be a mix of musical experts. Like people have said, they should be named but only after the contest, in order to prevent any dodgy deals that have happened in the past.

I think there's another reason why "alot" of people agrees with that, especially in the UK, and I'm not sure if it's the actual songs that got better (imo they are far worse and less interesting) but the fact that we now have a somewhat western biased juries to balance up things, which some are fine with. I think it's sad though that instead putting effort in the songs, we now have juries to back up countries who generally put little effort and commitment.

Anyways that's totally subjective whether the quality have risen or not, I think the overall quality have fallen, offcourse one could point out a couple of songs here and there, but for instance 2011 was just a bunch of middle of the road dated songs in English with zero substance imo, no connection to the countries they represented in term of cultural style or what was actually popular in those countries at the moment.

"It's my time" was cheesy dated stuff, if that's considered "higher quality" then yeah, we're heading right in that direction with the juries now onboard. As I wrote the era of Disney ballad died in mid 90's, for some odd reason only the people you call "music experts" (whatever that is) who are part of the Eurovision juries somehow find relevance in those type songs.

Personally I'd take songs like "Wild Dances", "Lejla", "Oro" and "Rändajad" over any of those songs you mentioned. I miss when we had some identity in songs, now they are all bland and sound like dated American stuff more or less.

Again, if this was a singing contest then maybe, but this is also a song contest. The juries are so focused at finding the best wailing voice that they totally overlook the fact that this is a song contest.

If the juries took any chances, then why did they overlook Germany 2011? Imo the juries are totally out of touch of more or less anything. No clue about what's actually modern, no respect towards local sounds, no interest in anything little bit different.

Eurovision could change its name to Anglovision Bland Singing Contest, because that's what has happened imo.

 

[AlekS]

Why should we keep them, Aleks? They are fucking the results. Badly.

In your opinion. But it's not just up to you to decide the results

 

[AlekS]

a) what is a 'music expert'?
b) do you know those people and their professions?

As far as I know not even ten per cent of their names are revealed.

a) Someone who's going to promote this entry/performer after ESC and someone who decides if he/she/they will be promoted.
ESC is not just for you or other televoters


b) I can speak about our jury. Yes, I know those people. A singer, an owner of a radio station, record label owner, vocal coach, the 1st NTU vice president.

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

A-lister, I take your points and yes like I said before opinions are very subjective and personal. But I dont think that how many songs are in English is a sign of quality. If countries wanna sing in English then I dont see a problem with that. The Juries arent biased towards English, the Televoters like it just as much (if not more) and if there is a great non-English song, it will do well under both the Juryvote and Televote.

 

[AlekS]

It does work because 2 separate votes cant just be stuck together, they have to be integrated. Small differences they can hardly be described as! Italy = 251 points winner for the Jury, 99 points 11th for the Televote. United Kingdom = 5th/22nd.

Actually they can.
And omg @ discriminating big differences. I have really different taste with you so why do you say that the jury's difference is worse? It's not worse than any big difference between televoter's tastes

Nope, everything needs constant reforming otherwise it gets stuck and brakes (like it did this year).

I'm f-en fed up by reforms! This contest is for music and performing - not for changing rules every year just because someone doesn't like it

The performer should be allowed to suck in the rehearsal, it is the rehearsal and the purpose of the rehearsal is to prepare for the final performance which you will be judged on.

Fail! This is NOT just an ordinary rehearsal. This is performance in front of the whole venue, the juries and cameras. If they suck they will be slapped

There just needs to be a flowing voting system, not one that is 2 parts stuck together which dont agree.

Actually they agreed on the majority of cases and they are allowed to agree/disagree with the televoters. They shouldn't vote like somebody said them.

 

[A-lister]

A-lister, I take your points and yes like I said before opinions are very subjective and personal. But I dont think that how many songs are in English is a sign of quality. If countries wanna sing in English then I dont see a problem with that. The Juries arent biased towards English, the Televoters like it just as much (if not more) and if there is a great non-English song, it will do well under both the Juryvote and Televote.

Well I don't think it's a coincidence that we had a record of English songs only after a couple of years of juries' influence.

Anyways my point was not just about the language issue, but about the juries' overall voting and taste.

And yeah, it's all subjective and it all comes down to how one view Eurovision I guess, it's just a fact that no matter what someone will be dissatisfied.

I really hope though that something will be done, because I truly believe that this is hurting Eurovision the way things are going now. I can just talk for myself, 2011 was the first Eurovision CD I didn't buy (I own all from 2004-2010), the music is just uninteresting and in the end of the day if the songs aren't good or interesting, then what type of "song" contest is this really?

It's not even that entertaining to watch any longer. They spend all the money on the big stages and effects, but with all the safe midtempo/ballads no one pays any attention in bringing us some shows. If it's all about the voices, this would cost less being broadcasted on the radio. I'm not saying the singers should sing bad or anything, but right now it seems to be the only thing that counts and we already have shows for that.

In Idol and other similar concepts where you are looking for a "singing talent" it's different. They sing kareoke and the songs are not the main deal. But in a song contest one would think that the songs should be the most important thing and I feel the juries doesn't pay attention to that any longer, and therefor the song quality imo has fallen.

 

[CC92]

a) Someone who's going to promote this entry/performer after ESC and someone who decides if he/she/they will be promoted.
ESC is not just for you or other televoters


b) I can speak about our jury. Yes, I know those people. A singer, an owner of a radio station, record label owner, vocal coach, the 1st NTU vice president.

They are free to promote whoever they want after and also before the contest as they already do it. That is no reason to hide the public's opinion or are they feared to face it because that could put a spoke in their capitalistic and political wheels? I almost think so. Anyway, they (I speak about the 215 as a whole, not about single members) seem to be quite unexperienced 'business men' when they think they can be successful with disney ballads, uber generic/old-fashioned pop songs and at the same time overlook massive chart hits like Allez Ola Ole or I can. However, what I assume is that this instrument rather was given to please broadcasters relieving them from their powerlessness and giving them scope to assert their internal interests different in their natures: political voting, tactical voting –> after 2008 this seemed especially 'necessary' for western broadcasters, networking, display of power, ... and on the other hand to continue with the creeping americanisation, commercialisation, idolisation etc. of European's culture and music market as in the results and the musical field of 2007 and the years before there was a clear, obviously unconvenient trend back to originality and authenticity recogniseable. Moreover, fueling hatred against Easteners ('communist bloc') or Muslims still sells well in Western Europe.

 

[AlekS]

They are free to promote whoever they want after and also before the contest as they already do it.

It's not up to you to order and advice others how to do their job. They know better than you about it. They don't promote their entries for everyone and they aren't supposed to please your holy taste.
If it's better for them they have a full right to judge the last dress rehearsal.

That is no reason to hide the public's opinion or are they feared to face it because that could put a spoke in their capitalistic and political wheels?

And since when public opinion should order others how to live and how to vote?

Do we hide your public opinion or you don't complain enough!?
Public doesn't rule the EBU, accept that. Have your opinion as much as you want but you aren't in charge and you never will be

Public opinion doesn't order you how to vote on elections so have at least basic respect and don't order others how to vote. Thanks.

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

@Aleks

Actually they can.
And omg @ discriminating big differences. I have really different taste with you so why do you say that the jury's difference is worse? It's not worse than any big difference between televoter's tastes

They can, and that's what's happening. But what Im saying is that it's not very good. Seeing as the Televote result is the result made by millions of people then I will consider it to be the priority and that the Juryvote doesnt fit in with it. But I've also said that there's got to be changes to Televote too but seeing as this topic is about Juries I'll stick to the Juries.
And it's not really about Televote vs Juryvote, Im saying that neither of them work well stuck together, they have to be combined in a better way.

I'm f-en fed up by reforms! This contest is for music and performing - not for changing rules every year just because someone doesn't like it

You might be, but Im f-en fed up by keeping things the same! We saw the consequences of when things are left too long without changes in 2006/2007/2008, lets not do the same again. 2011 voting was evidence that the current system worked well in 2009 and 2010, but it's time for a change again, and I hope that the EBU will make some changes.

Fail! This is NOT just an ordinary rehearsal. This is performance in front of the whole venue, the juries and cameras. If they suck they will be slapped

Whatever you think doesnt change the fact that it is called a 'dress rehearsal' and so it should be to prepare for the final performance. That is what rehearsals are for, where else, in sports, in music, etc, do you get judged on your rehearsal performance? It's ridiculous.

Actually they agreed on the majority of cases and they are allowed to agree/disagree with the televoters. They shouldn't vote like somebody said them.

I wouldnt say they agreed on the majority of cases. They both had different winners, 10 place difference for Italy, 7 place difference for Sweden, 10 place difference for Greece, 17 place difference for United Kingdom! They agreed on finishing positions in the minority of cases.

 

[doctormalisimo]

^I'm assuming that by minority, you mean that there were more disagreements than agreements?
Because looking at the figures, in 15 cases the jury and televote result only differed by 5 or less

And while there were a lot of large disagreements (like the UK and Italy), the juries and the televoters both put in 19th place and in 20th place, the televoters put in 1st and the juries put them in 2nd. The televoters put in 9th and the juries put them in 10th.
Also in 2010, the exact same situation occurred when the juries and the televoters put 15 entries within 5 places. In 2009, the two sides put just 12 entries within 5 places. So actually, the juries-televote discrepancy has actually been getting smaller, therefore the overall result has been getting more accurate.

 

[AlekS]

they have to be combined in a better way.

And I'll repeat again. Any real objective reason for this? Except someone's subjective taste. Why should the voting be like you or somebody else says? It's only up to EBU to decide
Televoters shouldn't intrude into jury's voting and vice versa.
If the juries think differently than televoters let it be so.

You might be, but Im f-en fed up by keeping things the same! We saw the consequences of when things are left too long without changes in 2006/2007/2008, lets not do the same again. 2011 voting was evidence that the current system worked well in 2009 and 2010, but it's time for a change again, and I hope that the EBU will make some changes.

THE SAME?! The rules used to change every year. And if "consequences" mean that the entry which you hate or geographical area which you hate (I think we've already found out which one) takes high positions - it's not consequences, it's your subjective taste and inability to accept other televoters' taste You label majority of them in neighbour voting without having any proofs. Like voting for my neighbour entry is a crime

Whatever you think doesnt change the fact that it is called a 'dress rehearsal' and so it should be to prepare for the final performance. That is what rehearsals are for, where else, in sports, in music, etc, do you get judged on your rehearsal performance? It's ridiculous.

Whatever you think doesn't change the fact that we judge multiply performances. If performers record their back-up videos on this rehearsal and they still suck then their marks should be reduced.

Just like heptathlon is not about 1 event, ESC is not about just 1 performance currently I see no valuable reasons why the juries should rate the same thing with televoters.
So what, that others aren't judged on the rehearsals... and? Will you become straight just because others are straight? Eurovision is not like others

You can't respect EBU's rules and the jury's way of voting (as well as my voting and voting of my country). It's ridiculous. Just like demanding the juries to vote similary to televoters

I wouldnt say they agreed on the majority of cases. They both had different winners, 10 place difference for Italy, 7 place difference for Sweden, 10 place difference for Greece, 17 place difference for United Kingdom! They agreed on finishing positions in the minority of cases.

They didn't have a different winner last year. And 2 years ago.
So we should change the rules because the juries do not vote like televoters? 3 You say that it's not what you mean but in the same time you contraddict yourself
The juries aren't supposed to vote exactly (or similar) like televoters.

7 places difference is not so much actually so yes, they agreed in majority of cases.

Difference between tastes is not a crime. And I'm not a criminal if I or majority of my nation thinks/votes differently than you. Just like the juries.

 

[MyHeartIsYours]

^I'm assuming that by minority, you mean that there were more disagreements than agreements?
Because looking at the figures, in 15 cases the jury and televote result only differed by 5 or less

And while there were a lot of large disagreements (like the UK and Italy), the juries and the televoters both put in 19th place and in 20th place, the televoters put in 1st and the juries put them in 2nd. The televoters put in 9th and the juries put them in 10th.
Also in 2010, the exact same situation occurred when the juries and the televoters put 15 entries within 5 places. In 2009, the two sides put just 12 entries within 5 places. So actually, the juries-televote discrepancy has actually been getting smaller, therefore the overall result has been getting more accurate.

I would consider a 5 place difference to be rather substantial - 10th place and 15th place, they're very different. And this year is the first year that the winner has differed, personally I would have preferred Sweden to win but why is it fair that Italy came second overall despite coming first in the Jury vote with a massive points lead over second place whilst Azerbaijan only managed to win the Televote by 3 points ahead of Sweden? This proves the problem for me. It leads to countries succeeding who are only average in both votes, and countries who have an overwhelming endorsement from one vote but not the other, are neglected.

 

[AlekS]

^I'm assuming that by minority, you mean that there were more disagreements than agreements?
Because looking at the figures, in 15 cases the jury and televote result only differed by 5 or less

And while there were a lot of large disagreements (like the UK and Italy), the juries and the televoters both put in 19th place and in 20th place, the televoters put in 1st and the juries put them in 2nd. The televoters put in 9th and the juries put them in 10th.
Also in 2010, the exact same situation occurred when the juries and the televoters put 15 entries within 5 places. In 2009, the two sides put just 12 entries within 5 places. So actually, the juries-televote discrepancy has actually been getting smaller, therefore the overall result has been getting more accurate.

xyeah

 

[CC92]

It is not condemnable to have another taste than 'the majority' (in fact, the 'majitorian taste' itself is just a compomise of pluralistic opinions... the very fewest come even close to agree on all places) but to say 'my taste is more relevant the one of thousands or million others and thus I just oppress the domocratic outcome'. Unlike in e.g. Melodifestivalen where they at least have the spark of decency to show how the people voted.